Analysis of Safety at Quiet Zones

Transcription

1 F E D E R A L R A I L R O A D A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Analysis of Safety at Quiet Zones 2014 Global Level Crossing Safety & Trespass Prevention Symposium Urbana, IL

2 F E D E R A L R A I L R O A D A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Who We Are

3 F E D E R A L R A I L R O A D A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Who We Are RAIL The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) enables the safe, reliable, and efficient movement of people and goods for a strong America, now and in the future. Safety is our number one priority We are laying a foundation for higher performing rail Promulgating and enforcing rail safety regulations Investing in America s rail corridors Research and development to advance rail safety

4 F E D E R A L R A I L R O A D A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Our Success and Accomplishments Rail has never been safer. FRA is committed to continuous safety improvement: Maintaining onsite inspections identifying safety violations; Development rules, regulations and guidance; and Workforce training FRA is the Chief Safety Regulator for all Passenger and Freight Railroads Nationwide FRA employs nearly 900 people With eight regional offices strategically located across the Nation Dedicated to our vision: RAIL-

5 F E D E R A L R A I L R O A D A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Laying a foundation for higher performing rail Our Multi-Billion Dollars Portfolio Includes: Amtrak Operating and Capital Programs - $7 billion High Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Grants - $10.1 billion Research and Development - $30 million Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) Program $1.7 billion Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) Programs - $423 million Rail Line Relocation Grants - $86 million Disaster Assistance Grants -$18 million

6 F E D E R A L R A I L R O A D A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Analysis of Safety at Quiet Zones

7 Background Most states had laws that require trains to provide an audible warning while approaching public crossings Some states permitted whistle bans under state law or home rule This rule was required by statute in order to provide a National policy for train horn use 7

8 Florida Experience 8

9 Florida Experience 9

10 Florida Experience 10

11 National Safety Impact Florida - nighttime ban 195% increase in collisions 1st Nationwide Study +84% average increase in collisions Nationwide Study - revised +62% at crossings with gates Rule +66.8% at crossings with gates 11

12 Study Considered quiet zones established between May 2005 and April quiet zones 81 pre-rule 121 new 1 wayside horn 903 crossings

13 Hypothesis There will be no statistical difference between the number of incidents that occurred before the quiet zone was established and the number of incidents that occurred after the quiet zone was established.

14 Statistical Analysis Statistical analysis was conducted on all quiet zones based on Year of quiet zone establishment Quiet Zone Type (New, Pre Rule) Basis for establishment or BAS Section.

15 Data Collection CCM QZ database Date of establishment Pre-rule or new Basis of establishment Railroad Accident Incident Reporting System Grade crossing collision reports

16 Data Study included only the quiet zones that had been established for at least one year. 202 quiet zones were observed with establishment dates from May 2005 through April Pre-Rule 121 New

17 Eliminated Data A minimum of 12 months of observable data both prior to and following the implementation of the quiet zone was required to avoid biased estimates that could occur because of seasonal factors. 2 quiet zones did not contain proper NOE s and therefore were not included in the study. The remaining 203 quiet zones being observed were established between May 2005 and April Chicago exempt crossings not included

18 Incident Data 2 groups of incident data: Incidents which occurred during the year period N before the quiet zone N is the number of full observable years before (and after) the establishment of the quiet zone. Incidents that occurred during the year period N after the quiet zone Data outside of this criterion were eliminated; consequently, incidents which occurred either before or after the full 12 month period (in a 1 year study) were eliminated.

19 Analysis Methodology A paired t-test is a statistical method used to compare two population means where observations in one population can be paired with observations in the other population. Specifically, incident data for a time interval of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7 year(s) before the quiet zone was established was compared to incident data during a time interval of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7 year(s) after the quiet zone was established. A comparison of the means of each of sample was used to analyze incidents that occurred during these specific time frames.

20 Hypothesis The null hypothesis is that there will be no statistical difference between the number of incidents that occurred before the quiet zone was established and the number of incidents that occurred after the quiet zone was established (due to the installation of SSMs or ASMs which compensate for the increased risk attributable to the lack of the horn).

21 Null Hypothesis If the t=test value is 0.05 or less, the difference is statistically significant Null hypothesis is false

22 QZs Grouped By Years Group Established Between Consecutive months of data # of QZs in group 1 May-05 April A May-05 April May-06 April May-07 April May-08 April May-09 April May-10 April May-11 April-12 Not Included

23 Collision Data Group Observation Incidents Before NOE Incidents After NOE A TOTAL

24 Analysis Group Established Between P(T<=t) two-tail 1 May-05 April A May-05 April May-06 April May-07 April May-08 April May-09 April May-10 April May-11 Present

25 Quiet Zone Type Quiet Zone Type QZ Count Pre Ax Post Ax New Pre Rule Wayside Horns Total

26 Analysis by Type Quiet Zone Type P(T<=t) two-tail Is P-value > α =.05? New ( ) Yes, FAIL TO REJECT Pre Rule ( ) Yes, FAIL TO REJECT

27 Basis of Establishment No statistically significant difference in the number of accidents before and after the establishment of Quiet Zones observed in the BAS Sections as highlighted in green on the next slide. Not enough data in other BAS Sections for analysis

28 BAS Section Description QZs Pre Acc Post Acc (a)(1) SSM at each Crossing (a)(2)(i) QZRI <= NSRT, no SSMs (a)(2)(ii) QZRI <= NSRT, with SSMs (a)(3) QZRI <= RIWH with SSMs (b) Public Authority Application (b)(4)(i)(A) App QZRI<= RIWH (b)(4)(i)(B) App QZRI<= NSRT (a)(1)(i) SSM at each Crossing (a)(1)(ii) QZRI <= NSRT NSRT<= QZRI<= 2 x NSRT, no (a)(1)(iii) relevant collisions (a)(1)(iv) QZRI <= RIWH (b)(1)(i) Partial QZ, SSM at each Crossing 0 0 0

29 Conclusions No significant difference in collisions before and after the establishment of quiet zones Overall Pre-rule or New By year except for the latest year unexplained and will need further analysis.

30 Questions? Thank you to Marquese Lewis. Ron Ries (202)

31 F E D E R A L R A I L R O A D A D M I N I S T R A T I O N RAIL Visit us at: FRA - Office of Communications & Legislative Affairs 8/6/2014